R v Wright - [2002] VSCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 159 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
CLARE WRIGHT

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CHARLES and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	WANGARATTA
DATE OF HEARING:	20 March 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 March 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 46

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against sentence - Drug offences - Armed robbery and attempted armed robbery using syringe - Errors by sentencing judge - Whether significant psychological illness justified moderation of deterrence principles - Appellant re-sentenced to lesser head sentence and lesser non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C. and Mr R. Pirrie	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr L.C. Carter	Pearsons

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Chernov, J.A. to give the first judgment.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

On 19 June 2001, the appellant, who is now aged 33, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to two counts of armed robbery and two counts of attempted armed robbery. She admitted one prior court appearance relating to a charge of making a threat to kill and one charge of unlawful assault. The commission of those matters occurred in a domestic context and the appellant was placed on an adjourned bond for 12 months without conviction. After hearing a plea in mitigation made on her behalf in this case, the learned sentencing judge, on 22 June 2001, sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of four years' imprisonment and ordered that she serve 30 months before being eligible for parole. His Honour declared that the period of 134 days which the appellant had already spent in custody be taken into account in calculating her ultimate release date.

On 28 June 2001, a judge of this Court granted the appellant leave to appeal against the sentence pursuant to s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958. The appellant appeals on a number of grounds, but it is not necessary to consider all of them, having regard to the view that I have reached that, as Mr Carter for the appellant submitted in his written outline, his Honour erred essentially as is claimed in grounds 2, 3(a) and 7. I note that the Director has also accepted that his Honour so erred. As a result, the appellant falls to be re-sentenced by this Court.

In the circumstances, it is only necessary to set out briefly the events surrounding the offending, and I do so by reference to the useful summary of evidence prepared by the Crown, about which there is no conflict between the parties.

On 9 February 2001, the appellant attended the psychiatric unit of St Vincent's Hospital in the company of her partner, Barry John Wagstaff, and their 21-month-old son. She was affected by heroin and was psychologically unstable. The Department of Community Services had been involved in the care and protection of her son since he was three days old, and on 5 December 2000 the child was removed from the custody of the appellant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Wright

Details

AGLC: R v Wright [2002] VSCA 46
Case: [2002] VSCA 46
Decision Date: 20 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wright, appealed against his sentence for drug offences, armed robbery, and attempted armed robbery using a syringe. The case reached the court of appeal, where the appellant argued that the sentencing judge had erred in not sufficiently considering his significant psychological illness as a mitigating factor. The appeal centred on whether this illness warranted a moderation of the usual principles of deterrence in sentencing.

The court examined the legal principles governing the consideration of mitigating factors in sentencing, particularly the role of psychological illness. It assessed whether the sentencing judge's failure to adequately consider the appellant's mental health amounted to a significant error that warranted a re-sentencing. The court also considered the impact of the psychological illness on the appellant’s culpability and the overall appropriateness of the original sentence in light of the mitigating circumstances.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the sentencing judge had indeed erred by not sufficiently accounting for the appellant’s significant psychological illness. The court found that this illness warranted a reduction in the severity of the sentence. Consequently, the court re-sentenced the appellant to a lesser head sentence and a shorter non-parole period, reflecting the mitigating impact of his psychological condition.

The final orders of the court mandated a re-sentencing of the appellant, Wright, to a lesser head sentence and a reduced non-parole period, taking into account the mitigating factor of his significant psychological illness. This decision underscored the importance of adequately considering such mitigating factors in the sentencing process.

Orders